[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH v3 01/10] fs: common implementation of file type
On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 12:20:14PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:21 AM Phillip Potter <> wrote:
> > Dear Amir,
> >
> > Yes, I applied each patch manually to my tree, fixed it up where needed,
> > then after rebuilding and testing each one I committed it and regenerated
> > each patch. Thank you very much for your advice, I will take it into
> > account and make the necessary changes. In the meantime, do I add other
> > tags in the order they are received also (such as Reviewed-by:) and am
> > I safe to add these in when I re-send the patches with the changes you
> > and others have suggested (or would that offend people that have
> > offered the tags)?
> >
> Reviewed-by before of after Signed-off-by.
> I prefer Signed-off-by last which conceptually covers the entire patch,
> the commit message including all the review tags that you may have added.
> Some developers add Reviewed-by after Signed-off-by signifying the
> order that things happened, so choose your own preference.
> As a reviewer, and I speak only for myself, if I offered my Reviewed-by
> I expect it to be removed if a future revision of the patch has changed
> so I have an indication of patches that I need to re-review.
> But if the patch changed very lightly, like small edits to commit message
> and code nits in general, that would not invalidate my review.
> When in doubt, you can always explicitly ask the reviewer.
> Thanks,
> Amir.

Dear Amir,

Thanks - I am just going to fix up the commit messages as you suggested
using git am etc. The content of the patches themselves will not change
(until further feedback is received).


 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-24 11:32    [W:0.058 / U:5.148 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site